openscad-graph-editor VS godot-proposals

I really wish Livecode hadn't pulled their opensource/Community Edition (and I'd be very glad for someone to do something with that code).

Gambas is something I keep wanting to try and seems promising.

I did one small app w/ Python and TKinter, but it was a dense wall of text/code when I was finished and not something I was interested in revisiting. I keep seeing suggestions that Python w/ QT support is supposed to be quite good.

One unlikely option is Google's Blockly (which I wish had a stand-alone desktop implementation which would make graphical programs), which has a nifty version implementing OpenSCAD:

https://www.blockscad3d.com/editor/

which I've used a fair bit. Moving on from there, there is: https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor which has the advantage of encompassing the entirety of OpenSCAD. It's also possible to wrap up Python using PythonSCAD.org

If you're willing to consider other node/line connection systems two promising options are:

https://ryven.org/

and

https://nodezator.com/

What sort of coding, on what sort of projects do you want to do?

The Cube was a gift, and the PS work didn't go that far.

I found PS pretty inscrutable, esp. the function-filled variant used in Virtuoso, but did manage to get dimension lines coded up (which promptly ran into precision problems which I eventually gave up on).

OpenSCAD is a lot more approachable, and METAPOST was easy to pick up and make use of:

http://ftp.tug.org/TUGboat/tb40-2/tb125adams-3d.pdf

Still working through this at:

https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/3d-project

and mostly using visual tools (which arguably is limiting me) https://www.blockscad3d.com/editor/ and https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor and of course, had to throw: http://pythonscad.org/ into the mix. Still a bit miffed that Nodebox and Processing or maker.js weren't a good fit.

As a visual person (traditionally trained as a graphic artist), I've wanted this sort of thing for a long while, and I've been trying to use it for 3D.

Surprisingly, there are multiple specialized tools for this:

- https://www.blockscad3d.com --- an adaptation of Google's Blockly to OpenSCAD

- https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor --- wires and nodes, it has the advantage of exposing _all_ of OpenSCAD's commands (the above has a subset)

- https://github.com/Tanneguydv/Pythonocc-nodes-for-Ryven --- a module for using PythonOCC in Ryven --- when I finally succeeded, I found the language inscrutable, even when provided w/ quite nice examples (definitely a failing on my part, not that of the tool)

- https://github.com/graphscad/graphscad --- it took a long while for the source code for this to be made available, and for a while it had compatibility problems (why was "cube" redefined?) --- probably defunct for political reasons, it had some interesting ideas, in particular the ability to have custom icons for modules

- https://www.nodebox.net --- if memory serves I got hung up by not easily being able to do 3D, and when doing 2D having precision problems (or maybe that was Processing.org)

and I've been using these tools to make various things:

https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/3d-project

(and maybe eventually I'll finish something)

The problem I've been running into is there doesn't seem to be an answer to the question:

"What does an algorithm look like?"

I recently had occasion to mention Herman Hesse's _The Glass Bead Game_ (also published as _Magister Ludi_) and I'll bring it up again --- what is a meaningful graphical representation of a program?

The Drakon folks argued that there should be one true path but that's not really communicative and I would note that if this was a simple thing it wouldn't be decades since I last saw a physical Flowcharting Template:

https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object-groups/flo...

(and it's pretty rare to even see a well-done electronic drawing of a flowchart since Visio made its splash and vanished into the bowels of Microsoft)

The main problem seems to be one of expressiveness not scaling up well, hence:

https://blueprintsfromhell.tumblr.com/

https://scriptsofanotherdimension.tumblr.com/

Presumably, one doesn't want to define modules/variables unnecessarily --- but the question becomes where is that boundary?

If you define too many, then you're back to the "wall of text" which one was trying to avoid (but wrapped up in nice boxes with some lines or shapes), and if one doesn't use them (well, look at the pretty/awful images in the links above).

Ideally, a well-coded visual program would have a pleasing aesthetic appearance which is expressive and communicates flow and function, and I've tried for that at:

https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/programming

(though I wish that there was an easy way to export an SVG version of a program)

I believe that what is needed here is some graphical equivalent to Literate Programming: http://literateprogramming.com

Is there a nice GUI toolkit integration which would allow making a graphical application with this? I have an idea I want to try it which might be a good fit.

_That_ is a question I want an answer for.

Currently I am using OpenSCAD Graph Editor: https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor to create programs:

https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/programming#open...

but the fundamental question which remains unanswered is:

>What does an algorithm look like?

Interesting.

I've long been frustrated by traditional CAD/CAM, so finally worked up:

https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview

which allows me to use:

http://pythonscad.org/

and:

https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor

to create joinery:

https://forum.makerforums.info/t/openscad-and-python-looking...

which would otherwise be tedious to draw up:

https://community.carbide3d.com/t/creating-drawers/19475/26

Yes, unless you're a visually oriented person like myself who is trying to do the programming visually.

I use:

https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor

to try to design woodworking projects:

https://forum.makerforums.info/t/openscad-and-python-looking...

and I'd like to think that I'm managing to keep the visual appearance sufficiently expressive that it is easier to work with than a traditional textual code representation --- jury is still out on that, we'll see when I start re-purposing what I'm working on for odd/even sides, and then then doing the horizontal version of the joinery.

The problem here is that a fundamental question has not been answered, and as far as I can tell, has not been addressed by any of these visual environments:

What does an algorithm look like?

Herman Hesse alluded to this in his novel _The Glass Bead Game_, but despite decades of discussion and work, no one has made a convincing pysical representation of that system.

I love the concept, and have made some moderately complex attempts, e.g.,:

https://www.blockscad3d.com/community/projects/1430644

https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview

it always devolves to screen size being out-paced by problem complexity --- one gets something of an inkling of this at:

https://scriptsofanotherdimension.tumblr.com/

Alternately, one can just break a project down into modules, but then the top-level view becomes the wall of text representation (albeit w/ nice lines or captured into pretty boxes) which one is ostensibly trying to escape.

I'd love to see someone succeed in this, and I've been using:

https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor

quite a bit, and put a bit of money towards:

http://nodezator.com/

I have been very pleased w/ and impressed by:

https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor

and really want to look deeper into it to see if it could be forked to create a version which creates Python code.

Yes.

OpenSCAD Graph Editor is done with an earlier version and runs on Mac OS, Windows, and Linux:

https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor

Godot was fine, for the most part, it's a good engine for small games. The main issue was around working together and resolving conflicts with git (Godot isn't really working and constantly kept changing IDs in resource files), and it kept losing data in scenes when the code changed so we had to rebuild things several times. On previous test games we also ran into huge performance issues in the editor when we wanted to do too much work in scenes, so we had to switch to doing most of the work in code.

The worst part was when I had to rip out a bunch of testing code that used @tool for release as it seemed to cause issues when doing a release build. The engine is generally not great when you want to follow clean software engineering (e.g. dependency injection is not possible, I opened a proposal to that end here[1]).

[1]: https://github.com/godotengine/godot-proposals/issues/8850

If we had a Mask2D, this would be super easy and straight forward.

So if that's what OP meant, clip_children property won't work. Instead OP needs to use a CanvasGroup parent and the Line2D (with CanvasItem Material in Subtract mode) and TextureRect as siblings, or any of the other methods explained here until we have a Mask2D node.

There is an open proposal to have a compile option for a LibGodot, as a Library https://github.com/godotengine/godot-proposals/issues/6267

Yes, there could be the option to open at least 2 tabs at the same time, when working with scripts. This has probably already been suggested in: https://github.com/godotengine/godot-proposals

I cannot tell exactly where the jitter is from the video, but if it is what I'm thinking of, it is a known issue, see here. There is a proposal to fix this, with tons of discussion here. Try some of the workarounds mentioned in these two links. Game looks great by the way!

It's in the release notes. Here is a link to the pull request, based on this proposal.

Currently not possible: https://github.com/godotengine/godot-proposals/issues/7213